Skip to main content

tv   San Francisco Government Television  SFGTV  April 5, 2016 8:00am-10:01am PDT

8:00 am
housing semiand strengthen goals against evictions we're commented for housing needs for all san franciscans to learn more visit highway good morning march 15, 2016 plans and programs
8:01 am
committee meeting of san francisco transportation authority. i'm katy tang and to the left is commissioner peskin, avalos and to my right, commissioner cohen. the clerk is steve steamose and like to thank jim smith and [inaudible] with that if we can go to roll call. >> item 1, commissioner avalos, present. cohen, present. commissioner farrell, absent. commissioner peskin, present. commissioner tang, present. we have quorum >> if we can call item 2. >> item 2 citizen advisory committee report. >> we have chris [inaudible] our cac chair >> good morning commissioners. here to report on 4 items in the packet. improving west side. most of
8:02 am
the comments include things like need to look more closely at non commute hours, [inaudible] to bart which is item 9. more attention paid to commuters traveling to south bay and multiagency efforts to create private commuter shuttles. our comment were mostly about clarification on the selection of fund allocation and public comment include concerns about geo graphic equity. 11 million in prop k and [inaudible] approved with [inaudible] and on capacity update item 8, our comment were mostly on lrt, on the timeframe of delivery, citing the increases around demand projection
8:03 am
indicated the lrt should be indicated now. [inaudible] greater investment in transit that can handle increased demand and serve the existing population. with that, take any questions >> thank you for your report and weighing in on the west side sar. seeing nor questions or comments we'll open up to public common. item 2? seeing none public comment is closed. if we can go through the consent calendar, >> 3 to 4 are considered routine and staff not to present on the item. if a member objects any item cz be removed and considered separately >> seeing no questions any public comment on the consent calendar? seeing none public comrnt is closed. >> on the consent calendar, avalos, aye. commissioner cohen, aye.
8:04 am
commissioner farrell, absent. commissioner peskin, aye. commissioner tang aye. the consent calendar passes. >> recommend appointment of 2 members to the citizen advisory committee. this is a action item, we have mike [inaudible] >> the transportation authority advisory committee has 11 members suving a 2 year term. the plans and programs committee the board appoint to fill any vacancy. the transs portation thoert staff or caa make recommendation ons the appointment and applicants must be san francisco residence and appear before the committee once. attachment one shows information about currents committee member jz the list of applicants for vacant positions is attachment 2. detailed application materials can be found in the enclosure. the vac aenss are a
8:05 am
result of resignation of wells witney and mr. lar son. mr. lar son is seeking reappoint: there are 26 applicant you can consider and with that i can take any questions. >> thank you, i don't see any questions here at this time. i believe that we had received word from commissioner yee who would support reappointment of john larson. >> madam chair, if we could delay the district 3 appointment to our next meeting, i would appreciate that. >> alright. so the motion to continue. seconded by commissioner cohen and take that without objection. are there any other applicants in the audience here? please come up and make a presentation. if you wouldn't
8:06 am
mind letting us know which seat you are interested in. >> [inaudible] in district 8 and not in [inaudible] any other vacant district but wanted to come and state i'm interested in any district that is available or open eve chb though i don't live or work in that district >> did you already submit a application? >> i did. >> so you are part of the packet. thank you very much. any questions or comments on that? okay, thank you very much. any other applicant here who submitted applications? seeing none we'll open up item 5 to public comment. any members who wish to comment on item 5? seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues--alright, thank you commissioner avalos, seconded by commissioner cohen and take that without objection. so, we'll move on john larson for district 7 qu
8:07 am
continue for district 3 appointee. >> item 6, recommend approval of the 2016 prop a [inaudible] programming recommendations tote aelg 2, 192, 934 for 4 projects, amendment of the prop aa strategic plan. this is a action item. >> thank you, we have anna [inaudible] here. >> good morning supervisors. anna [inaudible] for policy and programming. i'm pleased to present to you the item for w the 2016 projject for vehicle rejivation fee program. just a overview of the program, this is a additional 10 dollar vehicle registration fee approved by san francisco voters in november of 2010. it is a relativity small source
8:08 am
of funding generated less than 5 million dollars a year and in representation of the relatively small amount of funding there are only 3 cat goers, street repair and reconstruction, pedestrian and safety and transst reliability and mobility improvements and one of the primary focus is also on quick to deliver projects. representing also that idea is any funds 234 that become available throughout the program is reprogrammed as thibecome available to the extent possible and these are fraujects completed under budget or if a project is able to be funded through new revenue sources. so, we have a
8:09 am
approximately 1.193 million dollars that is available for reprogramming right now. i just wanted to also give a few highlights of the program to date. so, in the current strategic plan for prop aa there is about $26 million in the 5 years to 19 projects. pleased to report the program is on track, there have been allocation of more than $21 million to date and so there have been a few projects completed under budget in the categories shown on the screen that generated funds available for a immediate coffer project and given we had twice the amount of funds requested than we had available for programming, and we are nearing the ends the first 5 years of the strategic plan and when the board adopt thd first 5 years of projects, we had revenue
8:10 am
assumptions that were based on a certain number of vehicles registered in san francisco on a monthly and annual basis but decide to revisit or revenue assumptions for planning at the time. i'll go into it had additional revenue assumptions but based on the revised analysis of revenue we have 1 million dollar additional for programming at this time through the coffer projects or available nx year with the strategic plan update. this brings the total amount available assuming the funds will be reprogrammed at this time or at least the amoint available in general to about 2.2 million dollars. this slide shows the analysis of the revenues that are available that are available now and are estimated to be available back in 2012. we
8:11 am
began collecting rchb new march 2011 and it is a modest amount of additional revenue, it is about 3.9 percent additional. when you look it over the 5 year period that we have been collecting revenues, it totals just over a million dollars and when you net out the 5 percent in program administration cost that is how you end windup the amount available now. this reserve as 240 million cap reserve which is 5 percent of the annual revenue which we think ask prudent for a fluctuation in revenue, however, the source has been a rel tivly stable amount of revenue over the years, it is just the increment is slightly higher. on this slide you see the applications we received so we received 5 applications requesting that 2.sish million dollar and with increased revenue we are not able to
8:12 am
fully fund all the applications as requested. we reviewed the applications eligibility and scored the applications and you can see the details of the criteria in your enclosure, but in general there is program wide criteria which is based on project readiness, can the project proceed to construction or at least to design in this fiscal year and analysis of community support, construction coordination opportunities. there are also cat go specific criteria, for example with pedestrian safety category the projects are consistent with walk first. the funds and transit reliability category are just over 500 thousand on a prior slide, there was a special condition adopted in the 2012 stuteejic plan that funds that became available in this category from cost
8:13 am
savings are-that the funds are reortizeed for muni rapid network projects. which is reflected in the funding recommendation primarily for the muni bus layover area as bart daly city. we recommend fully funding the project with the funds available in that category as well as the 4 projects in the safety category. we don't recommend funding for the presidio project, this was the lowest scoring projecktd and the scores primarily recognized a lack of project readiness and also the lack of funds after higher scoring projects were funded. for the muni bus layover project this will accommodate plan service increase for the 14 rapid that will begin in
8:14 am
the next few month squz allow the buses to layover on the paid parking lot at the bart station. it will take about 30 parking spaces but bart is supportive of this. [inaudible] will also commit funds to this project. we are also recommending funding for two one bay area grant projects. this is the broadway chinatown streetscape project which we recommend funding just over a million dollars and also to the health streetscape projects. [inaudible] is already under construction and broadway streetscape has bids out for advertisement and probably have come in recently. so, this would fully
8:15 am
fund the one bay area grant projects which are high priority frasan francisco and would like to see them advancing smoothly and also recommend parjs fundsing for the design phase of walk first ball bout location and this will fund up to 25 existing safety zones with concrete bowl bouts and sfmta will prioritize the locations based on the walk first criteria and collision history at these locations so it will take out the [inaudible] and put in permanent concrete bowl bouts. and the locations are shown on the map. i also have additional information on the location of the potential locations for the bowl bout projects. happy to dissiminate that information. project sponsors are here, happy to
8:16 am
answer any questions you might have. that concludes my presentation >> thank you very much. compligzer peskin. commissioner peskin j. >> i just wanted to thank staff and my colleague frz the million plus dollars to do the fourth phase of the broadway streetscape improvements, unfortunately a few days late for a pedestrian fatality that happened friday morning as a resident of district 3 who lived around the corner died in a hit and run at that intersection. i spent some time there on friday and again over the weekend and yesterday morning and visited the widow of the individual who was killed and the police are looking for the hit and run driver. there are immediate things we can do that i discussed with director riscon at the mta including daylighting on
8:17 am
the corners until the project comes along but it is sorly needed, it is a very very dangerous intersection and right next to a elementary school, so i'm delighted it is moving forward >> thank you very much commissioner peskin. anyone else? seeing none thanks again, i think all the plaujects are wonnerful and look forward to help with efficiency at bart. at this time we open up item 6 to public comment. any member of the public? >> [inaudible] killed at the corner of broadway and powell street in chinatown, so what happened is the chinese people prefer they have a sign that says be careful when crossing the street [inaudible] a good way to have them be more aware of the [inaudible] >> alright. thank you very
8:18 am
much. any other members on item 6. seeing none we close public comment. we are joined by commissioner farrell so will take roll call >> commissioner avalos, aye. commissioner cohen, aye. commissioner farrell, aye. commissioner peskin, aye. commissioner tang, aye. the item passes. >> thank you very much and now if we can call item 7 >> item 7, recommend allocation of 10, 975, 410 in prop k funds and 794, 980 in prop aa funds with conditions for 6 requests subject to attached fiscal year cash flow disbution. action item >> thank you, mike [inaudible] >> we have 6 requests again. first, protection system so this funds the [inaudible] this funds protection
8:19 am
systems at presidio yard which [inaudible] currently only one of the facilities 8 maintenance has fall protection so there is a back log of roof related repairs. second, sf pub lrk works requests to repave segment of claiten, clipper and por tola. the project will construct new curb ramp jz repair curbs and sidewalks at various locations. the second paving request is 47 blocks of 11 streets, [inaudible] the pavement condition here is all most as bad at 59 out of 100. this will construct new curb ramp jz repair side walk. besy car michael crosswalk. open a midblock cross wuck on sherman
8:20 am
street connecting [inaudible] this emerged from a site visit with school administrator squz community members and would identify engineering measure tooz improve safety and encourage studsant to walk and bike to school. sfmta [inaudible] signage and daylighting alt the curb and traffic signal timing changes. next elevator safety and reliability upgrades. this is for construction of companyhensive rehabilitation of 12 elevations at 4 muni metro stations. funding comes from a place holdser for muni projects and this provides access to the subway stations which are a critical component of the rapid network. finally, the muni bus lay over at daly bart station. we heard with this with prop
8:21 am
aa project. this allocates funds to the bus layover project and this is contingents on the board programming for the funds. this will improve bus reliability and allow for increased service on the 14 r rounts. [inaudible] but barts thinks that will end up with the wash with the extra riders that the 14 r will bring. so, with that i can take any questions. >> thank you very much for your presentation. any questions or comments? commissioner avalos. >> thank you, just a question on the daly city stop for the 14 r. areioaware of what the actual -what people are paying to take muni to daly city bart and take daly city bart downtown? is there a discount
8:22 am
because they come on muni for that? >> i'm not sure how that workwise the transfer. >> just trying to remember what the deal was on that, so that's okay. just the extension of the 14 to daly city bart helped a lot of residents in my district t is the quickest route to get downtown so i support the project. >> great. thank you very much. seeing no other questions or comments we'll open up item 7 to public comment. any members? seeing none public comment is closed. if we can have a motion on that. >> motion to approve. >> thank you motion by commissioner avlease and seconded by commissioner cohen and take that without objection. item aithd, please >> item 8 rail capacity strategy update. this is information item >> we have graham from sfmta.
8:23 am
>> good morning commissioner, graham [inaudible] thank you to tuque tauc about the work we are doing here. it is a start of major investment and near term actions mta can take to help improve the system today. we'll go over the work and how we did it and dive into the recommendation or improvements we identified and where do we take this work from here. anyone who rides the muni system regularlyly or those that ride it infrequently know it is crowded. it is [inaudible] in peak peerds and can be uncomfortable. there are many factors where a
8:24 am
system doesn't meet the reliability goal squz this leads to a customer experience that is inadequate and doesn't meet expectations. this is todays condition in a city that is rapidly growing and added residents and employees all the time so we needed to think in 2013 how could we do something in the near term to address the issue while making sure we get ahead and think long term and how to plan for the city residents and employees of the future so the rail capacity strategy is driven by 4 goals, cuchberage, couding, reliability and travel time. those goals manifesten 3 buckets. the first is looking how to turn the dialthen near term 6789 we realize we can't deliver major investments in the next year or 2 or 3, butd in the next fifen years there are things we can do to provide impruchbments for the customers
8:25 am
today. there is also a thinks at a system wide level we can try to deliver that will provide impruchments in the near term. this is again the start of the conversation in termoffs long term thinking. how might we think of a rail system for the future in san francisco, what are the rough areas corridors that are high priorities and the cost and think the path record of dlivy and what would that tell about the desires of a future rail system? use basically a 3 sfep methodology of assess, develop and screen. on the assessment side we have existing information, ridership and forcast and forcast and land use, travel time and reliability factors in addition we convene thd rail capacity technical panel which is front line managers and people who know
8:26 am
the system like it back of their hands and senior folks that are experts. this went through a line by line look of the issues and hang ups the sishm has today and what cause the head ache squz the opportunities to unlock the potential of the system. we went through developing concepts for those solution jz had a stakeholder system for long term ideas and screen these concepts based on our 4 goal outcomes we were looking for. as we went through the line by line review with the rail capacity technical panel we identified themes occurring and they are not unique but mta should consider whether state of good repair or enhancement. a number of enhancements are [inaudible] looked at the muni forward
8:27 am
[inaudible] additional things more specific to the rail system are terminal tracks end the line facilities and station or platform enhancements to make sure we can handle the crowds. these investment types would be considered under regular state of good repair project or other enhancements within the rail system overall and isn't necessarily capital projects because they are most effectively delivered as part of larger efforts. there were discreet locations with unique issues that were identified by the technical panel. these includes the west portal area where conflict with pedestrians bikes and vehicles cause a lot of friction and reduce our ability to get trains in and out of the muni subway. the muni metro extension we identified the need for a additional turn back track that will alleviate turn back crowding at the
8:28 am
embarcadero station turn back, it is identified as a constraint within our tublt operate the existing subway and also provides a spill overory release valve in large crowding event. the additional project on the muni metro extension is surface [inaudible] system and this is looking at recognizing that we have a lot of protection and dedicated right of of way but additional flex #b89 will allow the front line operators to get the most of out that system. one idea is that during a special event you can operate trains on the same each direction to clear out crowding and special event traffic that can effect the rest the system if we don't alleviate the acrowding in a timely manner. the fourth element, many are familiar with the [inaudible] lots of bikes and pedestrian activity there and what we hope is through the
8:29 am
west portal project which we prioritized and identified to go out and do piloting of it hopefully in the near term, we can learn lesson squz try to apply those at church and [inaudible] so we don't chase or tail and not having a grab bag of improvements because that is a lot tough nutd to crack. we think there is a opportunity to learn from the west portal prom project what might be most effective there. we are trying to turn the dial some increment in the near term. the sfmta is developing our 5 year capital improvement program and these rail capacity strategy improvements were considered along with a host of other investments including muni forward, other major corridor improvements and spot improvements in the system. that is currentsly under way being drafted. there is a up coming webinar march 21 where
8:30 am
folks can provide feedback as well as open house march 23 and 26 and preliminary funding the west portal and muni metro extension projects through construction have been identified for the next 5 years so we are looking to invest and find way tooz provide relief to our customers today. when we shifted thinking to the long term, we wanted to bring together not just the inhouse money and also key stakeholder jz people thinking about our system on a regular basis so we have a couple stakeholder workshops to bring ideas and how there may be solutions and where they think the city should invest first. we held a online forum for people it draw the map of the future and it is shown as a heat map where darker lines represent frequent
8:31 am
requests or submission of rail portal and took this information back and tried to disstill the concept back to the 4 goals of crowding, coverage, reliability and travel time. looking at how concept said performed we developed tiers and the tiers were themeed around what the concepts deliver. tier 1 is not only delivering on all 4 goals but expansion into new areas or very significant enhancement but benefits to the existing system and currents riders. the easy line to point to is the [inaudible] in the southwest portion of the city and allows sfmta to operate 4 car lanes through the subway and deliver a lot or
8:32 am
to castro and church and van ness where we see the most crowding so that is addressing a system wide issue as well as a local issue. tier 2 represented concepts with similar potential but still conceptual and will continue to do more thinking and seeing if the benefits stack up and tier 3 is essentially the investment you need to achieve the 4 goals. that is building up a network on the future and the coverage side represents high capacity service in a half mile. we feel pretty good about that and that is just on the rail side. any major rail investment also comes with a look at the bus system and how to improve access for everyone even though the improvement only occurs on a single
8:33 am
corridor. these are a long list of concepts. how do we take the start of a conversation and muchb it forward? all the elements are already in consideration under the mtc core capacity transit study and that will-we should have preliminary findings later this summer. additionally, sfmta along with the planning department and transportation authority, office of economic and workforce development and mayors office are working on a long range transportation program. included is a robust outreach so we reflect the desires and need of the community in the long range thinking and these concept squz ideas will be incorporated into that as well. with that,- >> colleagues any questions or comments? thank you for the presentation. i think we are glad to hear there is a long term look
8:34 am
and view on the action we need to take to improve the public transportation system and think all of us wishes we could see improvements sooner than later but think for your work on this. so, at this time then i will open up item 8 to public comment. seeing none public comment is closed. that was a information item so move to item 9 now. >> item 9, bay area rapid transit perk update. this is information item >> we have rien greene [inaudible] here. >> how is everybody doing. rien green 37 rks rosell to give a update about
8:35 am
the bart incentive programs we call bart perks. i'm here to give a update of the status. you may have seen recent media about it because there fsh a update to bart boards so we wanted you to be informed of the status of the program as it evolves. going to the status of the scope task and where we are with developing the program. context on the program, i was here in september presenting a little on it so some may be familiar but the impsis is we have crowding on bart. the graphic is a illustration of the ridership growth in the peak direction in the transbay over the last 3 or so years. it has gone up to 20 thousand in 26 thousand in 3 years. ridership growth and bart is experiencing as a
8:36 am
result of that very packed trains so the results are showing the national subway standard for train occupancy is 115 people per vehicle and bart is often experiencing loads of 140 per vehicle and where experience this every day so well aware it is packed like sardines. bart is working on several initiatives to address the problem in the medium and long term. you may have heard in the news the facktd new train cars are coming and will provide additional capacity but in the short term we are sunching is there anythingee can kooto relieve crowding for riders. also of great interest to us since this is a congestion problem. we are in conversation what we can do and intrigued by a pilot program in
8:37 am
singapore where they reduced crowding on their transit system. so, moving to give a overview of the scope of the project, we are working on goals objectives and design incentive approach, developing the program methodology, determining how to configure the software and provide payment to the rider jz develop a marketing and employer outreach approach and splitting the responsibilities with bart so work closely with them on all the project tasks but [inaudible] outreach component of the program. bart is leading the development of the software. how the program will work and some have heard this before, but the idea will be that anybody riding bart can earn points for their trips on bart. i will skip ahead a little to explain it. and they will earn
8:38 am
additional point for the travel in the shoulders of the peak period and use those points to cash out for rewards, specifically cash records through pay pal. that is a general scheme of how the program will work and right now we are working on refining the goals and objectives. as i mentioned, the top goal is really to reduce crowding and that comes back to trying to provide a better experience for riders. the taupe goal is engaging the public and providing a quality customer experience and making the most of available transbay capacity. we recognize that if the program is very successful it is possible if we free up capacity in the peak period some of that capacity can be back sold by other riders. we still consider that a success for the program because that is allowing optimal use of available transbay capacity and getting the most people through that
8:39 am
capacity that we can. so, those are the two top goaloffs the program. as another top goal is evaluate whether the incentive base approach works. we tried a lot of different approaches or investigated a lot of different approaches and very intrigued whether this incentive based approach can be successful so that is a real important objective is find that out whether it is successful and cost effective and equitable and try to extrant lessoned learned. another important goal is increase employer support for flexible work schedules. we know this is a major constraint on travel. this is a survey we did at embarcadero and montgomery where we asked riders why they can't
8:40 am
arrive at work before 7:30 or what are the barriers of presenting them to do that. most people said the pluralty of people said it is personal preference and prefer to travel in the peak period. twnt percent of people we talked to. another 20 percent said they are not allowed to and at work won't permit them to travel outside of the peak period so that is a barrier for people and want to try to address that with the program by work wg eemployers to work and encourage them to allow more flexibility for their employees. those are the goals and objective squz gave a preview oof the scheme to get more into this, the idea is that you earn points for your travel on bart. this graphic is illustrating the fact that generally you earn 1.per trip or per mile. we are
8:41 am
leaning more towards mile at this point. say 1 point per mile in the travel but in the green bands we call the bonus hour which is shoulders of the peak period. you can earn up to 6 times that value so 6 points per mile and have the opportunity to cash out for a low dollar value or to use your points to play a gam in the application and you have the opportunities to win a higher dollar value by playing the game. does anybody have questions so far on the incentives approach? no? >> i think we are good. >> so, that's roughly how we expect it to work. also want to give a little overview of how we market the program, so our goal is to get up to 25 thousand people to sign up, that is what we hope for and do that by through a
8:42 am
variety of channels so we work with employers to advertise through them and advertise directly folks coming outd of embarcadero and muntry and also use digital tis plain and doing social media oitreach and marketing and interfacing with the media to try to get the word out with the program. as i mentioned we plan to call it perks, this is the logo so look for that in the future. for the schedule we are in process to trying to prepare and expect to be able to launch sometime this spring and the initial phase runs for about 6 months after which we do evaluation and we also received another federal grant-i should have mention thd work is funded by a grant from f [inaudible] and bart but
8:43 am
received a grant to extend the pilot from fta so extend for a couple additional month after the initial pilot period. i think this is something we want to watch closely. we are excited to see what we can learn from this as you all know we have acute congestion problems not just on bart but everywhere, muni and our roadways downtown and this approach, this incentive based approach is a palletable way to address the congestion problems we face, that is why we are very interested to see if this can work because it can have so many applications outside of the bart context. happy to take any questions you have about the program. >> thank you for this and all your work in thinking how to reduce congestion on bart. i think that is very exciting and look forward to see the results after the pilot has done to see if it changed behavior for riders.
8:44 am
any questions or comments? seeing none we will open up to comment. public comment is closed and that was a information item so we'll move to itm 10 >> new item. >> seeing no new item-sorry, commissioner peskin. >> thank you madam chair. as i said in my earlier rarecollects i want to thank you for helping to phase the 4th phase of the broadway streetscape plan but the recent death in front of [inaudible] last friday reiterates chinatown needs to be ground zero for implementing vision zero. we have literally lost one life a year over the last 4 years in and around chinatown. i requested our staff work with
8:45 am
sfmta staff to utilize our planning dollars so we can fully realize the recommendation in the chinatown neighborhood transportation plan, which was approved in july of last year and would like a update at the next meeting where we are with that. we can't afford to delay the plans so status report would be greatly appreciated. i want to chat about the [inaudible] bus yard. years ago in the early 2000's when i was last on this board working with the mta in partnership with citizens advisory committee process, we did a land use study on the kirkland bus yard and at that time the mta thought the bus yard would be sur plus to their needs and did studying whether we can utilize that as a affordable housing site. it is a huge site, 2.6 acres at the northern end of
8:46 am
district 3 and thanks the work of supervisor kim, the voters last year passed proposition k which requires the city to expand the affordable housing on public sur plus sites. unfortunately this site wasn't listed as a sur plus site. back in the day we realized we can build as much as 180 units of affordable housing at that site so today i request the ta build on these past studies in partnership with the mta and planning department to discuss feasibility of affordable housing on the site and examine the possibility of retaining a bus yard and building housing above and we should also look at recommendations for temporary relocation of the bus yard during construction should we get that far and 24 optimal unit mix to maximize
8:47 am
affordable housing on the site. with the passage of prop a last november we have the opportunity to really make something of this site and want to thank you directors riscon and chang for the interest in the issue and would like to set our first meeting within the next few weeks begin working on the project. >> thank you commissioner peskin. commissioner cohen >> commissioner peskin, you mentioned that this particular piece of property wasn't identified through the proposal that supervisor kim brought to the voters, can you explain why? >> so, i dont think anybody from the mta is here but oever the last quarter of a century at two different periods the mta determined the kirkland bus yard was sur plus to their needs and subsequently changed their mind about that actually in the last
8:48 am
iteration matt ford was the director of the mta it was considered to be sur plus and realize would the coming with van ness brt they needed it again and hadn't thought that through so it isn't listed as sur plus because now the mta thinks they need the bus yard but i propose we explore the possibility of a bus yard with housing above. >> the reason and ask is it makes me wonder what other pieces of property are out there that the city ons that is unaccounted for. just food for thought. >> it was interesting-this is a divergence fl to the prop k thing but i laughed one of the ochbl properties that showed as sur plus is the fire chiefs house on bush street. >> thank you for your comments and commissioner peskin i would throw another thought in the mix. i have want vetted this with mta but hawj debate about the need for a
8:49 am
training facility and there are concerns about us potentially entering into a 9 and a hamp year lease for 2.something million dollars without guaranteed certainty after that period of time and looking for a large space to have the new ones trained and retrained so i'll throw that into the mix as well for consideration. alright. looking at a picture here and feel it would be perfect with that but haven't spoken to hta. no other comments or questions we will move to public comment for item 10 and if you can speak about the new introduction item. >> good morning commissioners. [inaudible] very interesting item. the principles of 6 methodologies of [inaudible] one, political management and areas of national planning and strategies for managing the people. b,
8:50 am
legislature for [inaudible] of civilized culture. c, judicial branch for [inaudible] military affairs [inaudible] a, [inaudible] b training the military force. c, using the military force and d [inaudible] number 3, [inaudible] also areas of a, making use of resources, b production, c making money and d, using of the money. number 4, religion in areas of a, establishment of the [inaudible] following the holy way. [inaudible] diversifyed pathway. 5, work on areas of understanding of loneliness
8:51 am
[inaudible] >> i need you to comment specifically on the new introduction. we'll close public comment now and if you can call item 11. >> item 11, public comment. >> [inaudible] holy nature in creative expression [inaudible] fulfill ones destiny of loyalty and parental love [inaudible] the leadership to our people [inaudible] removal of
8:52 am
all tragic disasters and difficulties [inaudible] about life and death as well as tragedy of war. [inaudible] should investigate upon studies of other [inaudible] holyness and [inaudible] extension to everything. [inaudible] >> alright, thank you any other members who wish to speak during public? seeing none public comment is closed. if you can call item 12? >> item 12, adjournment >> thank you this meeting is adjourned.
8:53 am
[meeting adjourned]
8:54 am
8:55 am
8:56 am
8:57 am
8:58 am
8:59 am
9:00 am
>> i would like to call to order, the finance committee to order. our chair, spurp mar will be here shortly, and i'm lon down breed and we are going to get this started. to my left
9:01 am
supervisor norman yee and jane, kim and we should call the record. >> commissioner breed? snechlt here. >> compos? >> absent. >> kim >> present. >> mar? snechlt absent. >> yee. >> here. >> could we approve the minutes, without objection, those are approved. >> we will take the public comment. when public comment has been completed. >> all right. let's get to item number, 3. and we are now joined by commissioner mar. who is the chair of the committee.
9:02 am
>> item three. state and federal leg sislativep date, this is an action item. >> welcome. >> happy to be here today. i thought that i would give this a brief, overview of where we are at the capitol and where we are. >> could you identify yourself? >> i am sorry, yes. >> mark watts, advocate for the transportation, authority in sacramento. the legislature welcomed the new assembly speaker yesterday, when he was sworn in and he was elected in january and so he is now, fully in charge of the transition has been completed. and it was a very, very, happy ceremony. and i think that he has filled out priorities for his term. and i think that they will suit the state very well. beyond that, where we are in the legislative process for the
9:03 am
capitol, is on a sheet of paper here that i can't seem to find. >> darn it. i apologize, here we go. the end of february was the last day to introduce measures and you will see that reflected in the matrix today, where we have gotten about 40 bills, that we reviewed and made recommendations on. and i will come back to that in a moment. but next major deadline for legislation would be april, 22nd. for the bills that were introduced in late february. and they have to clear the first committ committee or they are dead or they are dead for the remainder of this session. there is a spring recess in the midst of this process, on march 17th, and march 28, they will be in recess, so the hearing for these measures will be very, very, heavily attended.
9:04 am
and very, heavy agenda. s and as they try to get through all of these by the end of april. in terms of note, on transportation, funding, which is a strong interest around the state right now, senator bell, has a measure in the special session and he intends to amend and we had hoped to see that on monday or tuesday at this point in time, his office says that he is refining some of the amendments, his amendments will add significant amounts of funding and finance for transit projects. even though the main balance of the bill will be focusing on the state and local, road repairs. there is an indication that the administration may elect to move on with a more stream lined proposal in about $2 billion range, that would not require a super majority vote in the
9:05 am
legislature, we are trying to understand if that is something that they are working on. but there are indications that there are, or there is a preference to try to get a small amount of funding for state and local road repairs, rather than make the push for the larger amount, that is represented in senator bell's bill and the assembly member's frasier's bill. and i will be keeping you abreast of the developments as we go through the next couple of weeks. in terms of the matrix of the legislation, there are 13 specific recommendations that we are making to you. one is a changed position, and then the other 12 are new bills for your consideration. and in addition, there is like 32, or 33 other measures that we have recommended watch for one reason or another, and they have may have applied to a policy area, where there is not much flesh on the bill at this point in time and many cases there are
9:06 am
spot bills on topics that may become of interest. and so rather than trying to find them again, when they get amended and we put them on the watch and that allows us to monitor that flux more evenly. and so if you would like, i can cover the 13 measures, starting with the first one, which is ab 1550 on page six. this is a position we had recommend that opposed in the past. and we are recommending watch. and it deals with disadvantaged communities in the cap and trade area. it did not change for the proportions of the projects or the funding that is required to be spent in the disadvantaged communities and as you may realize, or you may recall from the first go around of the money and the disadvantaged communities in the region did not fare well because of the way that is designed, and this bill, takes another step and leads the
9:07 am
current, 25 percent requirement in place, but as the requirement and 25 percent of the funding must be for projects that benefit, low income households. and so, what we have or why we are recommending moving to a wasatch front rather than oppose. we would like to continue working on the definition of disadvantaged community more in the background and working with there is a green gas reduction, and working to see if we can improve the disadvantaged definition. and we are asking for your changed to a watch position. >> i just wanted to thank you so much for being sensitive to the low income communities. and in some ways whether they are in the san francisco bay region or east la, so that we are taking in some ways a regional and even a state wide approach to equity but policies, but thank you. >> and we have seen a number of these types of measures over the
9:08 am
last couple of years, and we are recommending oppose on ab 1768, and on page 10 of the matrix, and essentially, it directs, the, remainder of the high speed, rail bonds to be used to pay off the, outstanding high speed, rail bonds, effectively, turn nighting the stream for the project and so as a consequence, we are recommending oppose. and in the several more and i will cover them briefly, because i don't think that there is going to be concern about the recommendation and we are recommending oppose on 1866 on page, 12. and this would redirect, the remainder of the high speed, rail bonds to the state water project funding and again, that is a major change in the high speed rail. and we think that the policy of this before you is for the high
9:09 am
speed rail program. and the next measure, ab1886, we are recommending a support and i have to tell you that i have to draw a diagram, three or four times before i fully understood this one. and essentially, there is an exemption provided within the e seqa, where 25 percent of the projects are no further than a half mile. this takes it to 50 percent, so no more than 50 percent of the land mass, is an expansion of the sequa expansion for these types of project and we are recommending a support position. ab 1964, on page, 14 is another, and a long series of bills, over the last couple of years, this one is little bit different than the ones that we have seen before. this simply extends the white sticker, authorization, to access hov lanes, and the white
9:10 am
stickers are pure, battery and electrics and the natural gas vehicles as distinguished from the greenstickers, when are the hybrids. and so this, applies only to the white sticker vehicles, but they are growing in sales, and the population throughout the state, is growing. and the concern is, that allowing, the continued and expanding access of the hov lane and so we recommend an opposed position. >> ab2034, on page 15, recommending the support position to you. and more than a decade ago, the federal government, authorized the delegation, to state transportation departments. to over see nefa, of the reviews, within their state. and that was enacted and it has been continued once and this simply continueses that authorization at the state level to allow cal transin
9:11 am
circumstances to administer and over see both nepa and sequa documents but i will not comment on the effectiveness, but it is a continuation of an existing policy. and what will bring the high speed rail program to an end. it says that no more bonds could be sold. >> and it will have to go back to the voters and so there is a double layer of protection against this becoming effective. because i don't see this measure moving forward but that one is found on page 15, if you would like more details or more information. we are also recommending support on ab, 2126, on page, 16. of the matrix. and this applies, to the state's current authority to utilize construction manager, and general contractor and authority, for administering projects, large scale, complex, projects and it will be coming to another bill, similar to this
9:12 am
in a moment that applies to you, about you this applies, only to the state. the state has the authority to do six and they have occupied the six slots in statute, and this will extend it to 12 for cal trans, to administer. >> mr. prazir is the author. and the state, highway and protection program is the main program or the main, financing source at the state level for the projects that are approved or we construct that provide, major maintenance and reconstruction, as well as the operational funding to operate the state highway system. and the funding is generally, only available to the cal trans. and the ctc and the annual report, recommended the expanding a one small provision within this program to allow the operations, to also have capitol
9:13 am
improvements. so previously, up to now, the operations will be you know, widening the guard rail, and you know, expanding tauxiliary lane, and this allows for the capitol projects to qualify for the same projects. this bill, ab2374, was introduced by mr. chui. and we are recommending that the transportation authority not only support but register as sponsors of this measure, because it came from staff conversations with the author's office. and it would uniquely expand, or authorize, some what uniquely authorize, that the ramps, for the -- island, program and the ramps that connect to the bridge system, would be eligible utilize the cmgc authority just like we, or just like cal
9:14 am
transhas now for a certain number of projects. and i would specifically be targeted towards some of the complex engineering and construction that is anticipated for phase two of the ramp project. and i have been doing a lot of due diligence with state engineers and other folks who have had concerns in the passed about the similar authority. senator bell, has introduced sb 1066 which is on page, 35, and we are recommending a support for this measure, it does not appear to do much on the surface. and it is more of a place holder sponsored by the -- and what it does is it provides in the state law, the authorization for the new fast act revenues approved by the federal government and by congress to flow to the regular programs at the state level that we anticipate them to. and in essence, it does not really change the law, but it is, and it, it would, actually
9:15 am
be operative, if it were to pass. the game plan, however, is for the self-help counties to have, a joint, jointly, jointly managed bill that they can work on in case there are wrinkles in the fast act that the people have not anticipated and some of the funding formulas. so this is to preserve their option is to move the legislation. and senator glazier from the east bay has introduced us, and we are recommending the support position and it is on page, 35. the mtc, has commute benefits ordinance, and they have the authority to adopt a commute, benefits ordinance, and that is soon to expire. and this was, simply, extend that authorization, indefinitely, and consequently we are recommending support. and the final measure for your consideration, is sb, 1259, by
9:16 am
senator runner, and on it is page, 36 of the matrix and we are recommending oppose. this picks up the idea that have been attempted several decade or more to allow veterans with special, decals and the ability to access toll facilities and there has been similar, authorizations in other states, where we have, and the reports are that, it can result in fraud. and associated decreases in the toll revenue. so, it is, mainly an issue of equity. with that i bring my oral part of the presentation open for questions if you have. and i will try to answer them. i am still trying to digest all of the bills. there is more than 1,000 in each house. >> so questions colleagues? >> i wanted to say on the
9:17 am
sb1128, by glazer that the bay air quality district, and the community benefits policies and give many options or a couple of options to employers, and i think that is a really important one in insuring that we are reducing greenhouse gas and trips as possible. and the coalition that are really trying hard on automatic speed enforcement. and the speeding cameras. but i know that some communications with some of chui's office were fruitful up until the last minute but we are hopeful that there is legislation that comes forward, but it is a little disappointing but i want to give a shout out for the work behind the teams on those efforts but thank you so much, mr. watts for the great presentation. and commissioner yee? >> thank you, for your presentation, and i know that you mentioned some bills may not have all of the details,
9:18 am
necessary, or whatever, and so you are watching it. and one of them may be, under or possibly may be ab 1677. >> on page, 9. or 17? >> i guess that what i would like to do is to move that to suggest that we urge you to move it from watch to support. and the reason for this, is because this is a bill that, so that the board of supervisors have already passed a resolution to support. and we want to keep it consistent and we want to keep the heat on. and we are actually, my office is working with the senator on this particular bill and we are trying to give them as much information in terms or suggestions about the bill, as possible. hopefully, we will have some meat on it.
9:19 am
>> so, commissioner yee has made a motion to add, ab 1677 from the move from watch to support. is that your motion? >> yeah, this is in regards to the tour buses. in terms of making it possible for local jurisdiction or the local government to have the additional inspectionses as sort of the general idea. >> is there a second on the motion. >> so it is seconded by commissioner, breed. so we are adding 1677, to the action list, presented by mr. watts. any other comments, colleagues? >> let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. and so on the motion to add ab1677, from a watch to a support, position, could we do that without objection? >> the house has changed. >> so the house has changed.
9:20 am
roll call on the motion. >> breed? >> aye. >> campos? >> absent. >> kim. >> aye. >> mar. >> aye. >> yee? >> aye. >> the motion passes. >> and then now on the recommendations on the new bills and the recommended positions can we do that same house, same call? >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you, so much mr. watts. >> next item? >> item 4, introduction of new items. this is an information item. >> so let's open up this for public comment, anyone from the public that would like to speak? public comment is closed. next item. item 5. ? >> general public comment. >> good morning, commissioners. (inaudible) trueself or
9:21 am
well-being. (inaudible) money, (inaudible) making oneself a well-being. (inaudible)
9:22 am
>> thank you. >> next speaker, anyone else? >> i would like to speak about number, 18, please? if you could go to 18. so i think that we have already handled. >> you might be in the wrong meeting. >> i apologize. >> or actually i am sorry. i apologize. >> i think that the proper time would have been when we were dealing with the legislation. but you could speak on general matters. >> that is fine. >> okay. so seeing no other public comment, we will close public comment. and mr. stamos next item
9:23 am
>> item 6, adjournment. >> thank you for coming today. meeting adjourned.
9:24 am
within our population there are people who simply do not have access to the internet, who do not have the means to access information the way that others have, and i think that it's really imperative for government to make sure that we play a role in closing that technological divide. so you have to strike that balance between maintaining that character, but also welcoming in the new people who bring their own -- >> absolutely. >> so i love that. i love that mix, that balance that comes with it. it's hard to strike the right balance, but -- >> it really is. >> but it's there. >> i was born in guatemala and came to this country as a kid. i was brought here by my parents. and essentially grew up in l.a. and then moved up to the bay
9:25 am
area, where i went to college. i went to stanford. my background for the first few years out of school was a practicing attorney. i worked for -- in the private sector for a number of years and then i went and worked for the city as a deputy city attorney and then became general council of the school district here in san francisco, and through that became involved in politics and at some point decided to run for office. [speaking spanish] >> i think that san francisco
9:26 am
really represents the best that this country has to offer. it's a place that welcomes people from all over the world, from all over the country, and it's a place that not only tolerates, but actually embraces diversity, a place that is very forward thinking in terms of how it looks at issues. it always felt like home, and i felt that as a gala tino man that this -- gay la taken no man, that this is a place where i could be happy. now doing the job of a supervisor has been the most rewarding experience. it is really remarkable how amazing our neighborhoods are, how amazing its people are. i have a progressive outlook in terms of how i see things, and by progressive i mean we have to make government and make the city work for everyone, and that means that it's not just those who are doing well, it's also those who are not doing so well, those who have the least. but it also means making sure that the city works for the middle class. >> good evening, everyone. good evening. thank you all for being here. and when we first got into
9:27 am
office about two years ago, we started talking to the mayor's office of workforce and economic development and trying to figure out how we can help different corridors within our district have a better sense of what that neighborhood should look like, what its main concerns and priorities should be and a strategy for the community. and that means business, residents and the city working together to make whatever that vision is a reality. ultimately if there is a guidance on how i approach government, i believe in good government, i believe in transparency, i believe in accountability, i believe in making sure that we follow best practices. i think that oftentimes transcends the left, the middle and the right. it goes beyond that. and that's why as a supervisor
9:28 am
i focus so much on contracts and how the city spends its money, which is not traditionally a progressive issue. but i believe that we have an obligation to make every penny count. thank you. [applause] we are still going through a very tough economic time. we are still not where we need to be in terms of job creation and economic development. so government, i think, has to work with a lot of different folks, not only the business community, but also the community groups to see how we can create economic development that works for every san franciscans. >> one of the topics is -- [inaudible] >> as a member of the police commission, i learned that the most effective policing is the
9:29 am
policing where you have the police and the community working together. so you need training for the police officer who's already there. it is important to have police officers on the street and having that police presence, but at the same time, there has to be a connection between the police and the community. so i think we're on the same page. you have to make sure that you create an atmosphere where people feel safe, and i think that to feel safe they have to feel like they're in partnership. i really believe that when you are blessed with the opportunities that this country gives you, that you have an obligation to give back. i really believe in public service. i could be in the private sector and make a lot of money, but i believe that i have a duty to try to make things better for other people and to pay back to a country that has given me so much.
9:30 am
>> alright, good afternoon, everyone, welcome to our budget and finance sub-committee meeting. i am katy tang and i will be chairing this meeting instead of supervisor farrell, it is march 23, 2016. to my left, i'm joined by supervisor yee and to my right, we have scott wiener, filling in, our clerk is linda wong. and we'd like to thank sf gov tv, if we can get a motion
9:31 am
to excuse supervisor farrell from our meeting from today. moved by supervisor yee, seconded by supervisor wiener, yes, without objection, he's excused, madam clerk? >> please silence all cell phone and is electronic devices, cop pis of any documents to be included as part of the files to be submit today the clerk, items acted upon today will appear on the april 5th supervised sore's agenda unless otherwise stated. er >> if we can tall item 1, please. er >> item 1 is an ard nones amend thing police code to require employers to provide supplemental compensation to employees who are receiving state paid family leave for purposes of bonding with a new child. er >> thank you, and since supervisor wiener's the sponsor of this, i'm going turn it over the him first >> >> thank you very much, supervisor tang, and thank you for -- to the committee for hearing this important item today. colleagues, before us today is legislation that will
9:32 am
make san francisco the first jurisdiction s nr the united states to guarantee all parents six fully paid weeks of parental leave in order to bond with a new child applying to both parents, applying both to natural birth, as well as adoption, this is trend setting legislation and it is long overdue as the united states is so vastly far behind the rest of the world on this important issue. i want to thank supervisor cohen for signing on as a co-sponsor to the legislation. colleagues, it is frankly surprising and troubling reality in this country that a huge portion of workers in this country can give birth or adopt or bring in a foster child today and be required to go back to work tomorrow. for many of the choices between bonding with a new
9:33 am
child and putting food on the table, this is not a real choice at all and it is not a choice that anyone should have to make. even though there is huge body of work, literature showing the time spent bonding with a child is critical for the health and development of that child, economic realities for many people mean that bonding time unfortunately must take a backseat to economic survival. some have even offered that this is the start of the achievement gap. the vast majority of the world, and i mean truly the vast majority of the world, has recognized the importance of parental leave and provides mothers and often fathers time off from work to help build the necessary foundations for a new family. the united states on the other hand is shamefully at the back of the line and is one of only four country ins the world na do not required paid maternity leave, the
9:34 am
other three countries are swaz siland, mosoto and pap poe ya new guinea, you have the right to take up to three months of unpaid time off. this is unworkable for all too many, only 12% have access to paid family leave through their employers. when we talk about income and equality in the united states, dealing with the needs of a family including parental leave factor into that equation, if we want to really start addressing income and equality in this country, there are many things we need to do and better access to paid parental leave is one of them. the percentage of employers offering fully paid parental leave has declined in recent years from about 17% in 2005 to 9% in 2014, and only half of first-time mothers take
9:35 am
any type of paid leave. excuse me, unpaid leave. some firms are leading the way in providing parental leave, among states, california is one of just three that provides some level of paid parental leave, new jersey and rode island are the others and washington dc is considering moving in that direction. these are all funded through employee contributions through state-run insurance programs. in many ways, california leads the way in the u.s., yet we are still very far behind the rest of the world. california's program for paid parental leave is paid for by workers, most people who work in california pay into the state disability program, which in turn funds the paid family leave program. established in 2004 and the state program provides six weeks of paid family leave at
9:36 am
55% wage replacement, so you maintain just in excess of half of your pay. this works for some people, but for people who are lower income in particular, it creates a huge hardship in terms of that level of income reduction even with that limited access, the state's program has increased into concrete benefits for families. mothers who use the state program are more likely to initiate breastfeeding and to continue breastfeeding for approximately twice as long as mothers who do not use the program, the program doubled the average length of leave taken by new mothers from three weeks to between 6 and 7 weeks, the greatest gains are among mothers with lower levels of education, unmarried mothers, latina mothers and african american mothers. men who take two or more waoex off after the birth of a child are more involved than fathers who take no leave in terms of the direct care of their children 9
9:37 am
months later. 83% of workers in lower level jobs who -- lower income jobs who use the program are returned to their previous employer, a 10 point improvement compared to workers who did not use the program. paid leave increases worker productivity, improves loyalty and moral. but even with these positive status, ix there's still a lot of room in our state to grow, many do not participate in the state program because they cannot afford to take a nearly 50% pay cut, the proposal before us today, colleagues, is structured to mirror and complement the state of california's program by taking the 55% wage replacement for 6 weeks that the state provides and extending it to 100%, our ordinance would require that san francisco employers with 20 or more workers provide a contribution of that 45% so that the employee enjoys full
9:38 am
wage replacement for that six week period. this legislation will help make sure that people here in san francisco have access truly to a full six weeks of bonding time with their new child. we're honor today have unanimous support of both the commission on the status of women and the youth commission. since the introduction of this legislation, colleague, we have worked with a broad group of stakeholders including in the business community, through that process, numerous meetings, conversations, a lot of correspondence, many issues were identified and raised and last week, i introduced a series of amendments to take into account some of the concerns that were expressed by the business community, we want to make sure that we have an open door and i want to thank the business community for formalizing and putting down in writing what its requests were. key amendments that we made were one, that an employee
9:39 am
must work at the employer for at least 90 days or three months before claiming benefits in order to be eligible, in addition, an employee must repay his or her supplemental parental leave benefit if he or she voluntarily separates from employment within 90 days of the end of the leap period, in other words, people need to come back to work for three months. we amended the legislation to provide a simplified record retention requirement for employers, we pushed back the operative date to january 1 of next year in order to align with the beginning of the calendar year. we -- the legislation now provides greater guidance for employers and employees for situations where an employee works multiple concurrent jobs, the legislation also is much clearer about addressing the issue of fluctuation and
9:40 am
income by employees, in addition, the legislation exempts workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement until the next collective bargaining is executed, not conflicting with an existing bargaining agreement coming into effect with the subsequent negotiation of a collective bargaining grekt, and today i distributed a few minor clarifying cleanup amendment, they're non-substantive, they won't require a continuance to clarify things like benefit calculations in the event that the employee is on unpaid leave prior to the bonding period and also to clarify the scope of the cba exemption. i want to thank the advocates who worked with us and provided a lot of information who have also been very active at the state level including the california work and family coalition, the league aid society
9:41 am
employment law center, equal rights advocates and the opportunity institute, i also want to thank ted e began and his staff at the office of economic analysis for their report issued today and i'll have some questions and comments about that report. so, colleagues, and finally i want to thank andre's power in my office for doing an enormous amount of work to move this forward. so, colleagues, if there are no comments or questions, i would -- i see supervisor yee is on the roster. >> supervisor yee? >> thank you, i want to thank supervisor wiener for bringing this issue up, as you know, as he mentioned, california is one of the few states that does anything and even what it does is not adequate, i know that i've been part of a group for several decades now trying
9:42 am
to one way or another get the federal government to provide for this parental paid leave. it's something that, you know, we've tried everything we can, pressure, voicing ourselves, embarrassing the federal government saying how could you, we're really the only developed nation that doesn't have a paid leave policy, a federal one, so for us to do it locally and really pave the way, i'm very supportive. i do have some concerns about this piece of legislation and let me put it on the table so that hopefully we will address it. there's the question of who's paying for this and in particular, those in the non-profit sector, and if i
9:43 am
take, for example, probably the ones that's going to be pretty stressed in trying to make this work would be folks in the child care field. why is that? because in order to make up the difference, where are they going to find it? it's going to be hard enough to say to the parents, can you pay more now it's already 25% of your income that you're paying for child care, or do we say to the workers, can we give you less than minimum wage, that's all you're getting right now. the equation of making things balance between what comes in in termser of revenue and is what goes out in terms of expenses for child care centers is close to being flat equal, so -- and one might ask, but we're only six weeks in, we're only talking
9:44 am
about $3,600 per parent, it is $3,600 that the employee might get, however, in a child care center, or when you take care of children, you're restricted to a ratio that you have to abide by, whether it's for the preschool at 1-8 or a toddler at 1-6 or infants at 1-4 or 3, so you must not only pay that employee but you have to bring in a sub at the same rate just about, so it becomes $7,200 in which we have to find a way to help these people, otherwise, we're going to find centers closing down, we're going to find families not able to get child care and it's a big concern of the field, and to
9:45 am
a lot of parents too, so i know that we don't have the answers here and certainly this is an issue and it's certainly something that we need to pay attention to, but i still think that the overall value of this legislation really is more positive than negative. i really think that san francisco should do this, we need to get california on board to do more, we need to embarrass the federal government to be like the rest of the developed countries, so i'm making a pledge, we'd like to get the mayor's office, get our city to look at this particular issue. i'm going to look forward to working -- i don't know if supervisor wiener would like to work with me in trying to mitigate this issue because this is a big issue for
9:46 am
those providers, but you know, again, i want to thank you, supervisor wiener, for bringing this up. i think it is a great thing to do that our parents deserve what other parents are getting in other countries. >> thank you, supervisor yee. and so before we go to ted e ga*n from our office of -- on the economic impact report, i wanted to also say thank you supervisor wiener for bringing this issue forward, many of the statements that you have made were things that we also in our office acknowledged last year when we were working on prop b which had to do specifically with city employees and trying to create a better program and trying to set the bar for i think the private sector discussion in the private sector and we had launched in conjunction with the passage of prop b a task force that compromised of advocates, of the business community and so forth, and coming up with other ideas
9:47 am
for how we could address this issue, again, not just in city government but outside as well, so we've had several meetings and discussions about different policy ideas, and so i think that, you know, really, i support the shared goal of this, but i think i do have a couple of concerns that supervisor yee, one of them he raised, so the issue about the thresholds, i completely understand why it is currently set at 20 or more employees, something that i am very interested in is talking about whether we could potentially amend the legislation so that it would apply to companies with 50 or more employees, and this speaks to a lot of the small businesses and the concerns that were raised at the small business commission just this week, as supervisor yee mentioned, it's not just about that payment made to the employee who's going on parental leave, it's also about back filling services,
9:48 am
finding replacements and in the service industries or a child care industry, it's really hard to do that and especially with their economic situation such as child care providers, where are you going to find the funds to did that, so that's a pressing concern but not to take away the goal of this legislation at all, i fully support that, so at some point after our economic m pact report, i would like to see if we could potentially entertain a motion to that effect. another question i do have is whether we could address the issue of the private right of action that's been included in this legislation, i want to see if there is an ability for us to remove that from this, again, we really want to get businesses on board with this and i think eliminating that additional potential issue for them, i hope, will incentivize more companies to come into compliance with this new regulation, and then thirdly, just to make sure that i
9:49 am
know supervisor wiener already addressed changes, if they happen at the state level, and that it would automatically adjust what is required of the city and our businesses here in san francisco and i really appreciate that and i really hope the state takes a harder look at this issue and does a lot more to incentivize parental leave, so if there are changes though at the federal level, any improvements there which we also hope for, i'm wondering if there are amendments we can make to also incorporate some sort of automatic trigger for us here in san francisco so that there isn't this sort of double payment, so all that to say again, support this completely in concept, i think there's just a couple of outstanding issues that i have and i hope we can sort through. supervisor wiener? >> thank you, supervisor tang, and i wanted to thank you for your work around paid parental leave, the work
9:50 am
that you did last year to really modernize and improve paid parental leave for city employees, it was trend setting and i'm appreciative of the work you've done, i know this is a shared value here. i also a few things, regarding -- and this has been suggested to us in terms of what happens if there's a future federal paid parental leave program. now, i'm not holding my breath for the near future given the melt-down that has happened in washington dc, but who knows, we could have a mom in the speaker's chair and a mom in the whoit house in the not too distant faou khu, maybe there will be an earthquake in washington and we'll get some change. the challenge and we did work with the city attorney to see if we could come up with an amendment to address this. the problem is that if there is a future federal paid parental leave program, we have no idea what that
9:51 am
program will look like, who will be eligible, what its scope is, it's hard to structure an automatic amendment or change that will happen if we get a federal program in the future without knowing what that program is. what i would be prepared to do is offer an oral amendment today to require that if a federal paid parental leave program is enacted, then within let's say 90 days of that law being signed by the president, the controller would automatically prepare an analysis of the federal law, an analysis of how it interacts and intersects with our local law and then indicating possible amendments to our local law to make sure that we are not in any way conflicting with federal law or not, or covering the same ground that federal law covers and the
9:52 am
supervisors could consider that, i will offer that amendment again after public comment. in terps of the 20 employees versus 50 employees, i know this has been a topic of discussion and i completely respect the point of view that this should be 50 employee threshold instead of 20, i'm of the view that we should keep it at 20, that's consistent with other worker related ordinances that we've passed. if you right now about 75% of workers work for employers who are at 20 or more workers, so already at 20, about a quarter of the workforce is exempted, if we raise it from 20 to 50, that exempts i believe nearly 45% of workers, so it's a pretty big chunk of the workforce that would not be eligible, we tried to strike a balance of 20, i respect those who advocate for 50, but i'm gowning to stand by the 20
9:53 am
threshold that we put into the ordinance. and then with termser of private right of action, our ordinances are mixed on this, our minimum wage and paid sick leave ordinance have a private right of action. there are other ordinances that do not like the fair chance ordinance, and so i think this is an ongoing topic of discussion. then, supervisor yee, in terps of non-profit, i've been supportive in the past of cost of doing business adjustments in our city budget and i'll be open to those discussions again today and i'm also open to discussions about how we can help our child care providers because they play a very, very important role in our city, so thank you for that input. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor yee? >> yes, thank you for offering the language to have a study done by the controller if federal law kicks in.
9:54 am
could you also -- would you be open to also including if there's any changes in the state law to also trigger? >> supervisor wiener? >> through the chair, yes, the current -- so, right now, california pays 55%. right now, the way the law is drafted, if that number changes, if it goes for example there's been a push -- >> you're correct. >> yeah, and i do want to say thanks to some wonderful advocacy, there is a bill, it's either on the governor's desk or head tog the governor's desk to increase the 55% to 60% and then to 70% for low-income workers, a that's a positive step even though it's not the 80% we hoped for, if the governor signs that, that will reduce the employer contribution here. >> i stand corrected, thank you, i saw it. >> thank you, and just lastly, going back to the 20 versus 50 threshold for employees, my kind of
9:55 am
thought is, you know, can we at least try to experiment with the 50 threshold first and see how that goes and i've already asked our controller's office for an economic or an analysis on parental leave policies in our private sector, so perhaps if we started with a 50 person threshold, we could in their analysis also look to see what compliance is like, what sort of challenges may have curd, what are some things we could do bet e that's something i put out as a suggestion given this kind of debate between 20 versus 50, but with that said, why don't we go first then to ted e ga*n on the economic impact report. >> thank you, and good afternoon, supervisor, ted e ga*n, controller's office of economic analysis. yesterday our office issued an economic impact report on this item and i would like the walk you through some of
9:56 am
the main points of our findings of our report. first in terms of the introduction, there's a legislation, i think important things for people to keep in mind is that currently, california employees who take pfl are eligible for up to 55% of their salary, this is paid by california employees through a tax on their payroll, so it's entirely paid currently by employees. the proposed legislation would essentially top that up to 100%, the remaining 45% would be paid by the employer, the san francisco covered employer and in a moment, i'll say what a covered employer is, so that's a feature that the state program does not have, this requirement for the employer to pay a share of the pfl claims. a covered employer under the legislation is any employer with -- is any employer of a covered employee which is almost any type of employee who has had a new child and
9:57 am
is eligible for a bonding claimfinger only employers fewer with 20 employers anywhere would not be covered by this legislation, that's about the employers who employ about 75% of the workforce within san transwould be covered by this legislation. this is some data that the department of the employment development department at the state shared with us regarding the number of bonding claims, you can take paid family leave claims either to care for a family member or to care specifically for a new child, and this proposed legislation only requires additional employer supplement if you're taking the claim to bond with the new khiel, so it's not all paid family leave claim, if you look at the subset that is for bonding with the new khiel, the average from the 2011 to 2014 period is about 4600 claims by san francisco residents.
9:58 am
the average claim is about 5.5 weeks, you're el vibl under the state program for up to 6 week and is the average weekly benefit of that is about $743 a week which is again reflective of 55% or so of the average wage of the claimants who live in san francisco. just a little bit of background on the scope and prevalence of this and i apologize for those watching about our colors for the top slides here, this is just a chart that shows the breakdown by gender of employed people who work in san francisco, san francisco's workforce is about 47% female, using census data, we're able to restrict that to look at just the sample of people who work in san francisco and have told the census that they have a child who's less than one years old, so those employed people with a young child is essentially the universe of folks living in san francisco who could
9:59 am
potentially make a pfl claim. the point of this chart is although the workforce in san francisco is about 47% female, only 42% of the employed residents with a new child are female, this could be due to the fact that women are more likely than men to drop out of the workforce at least temporarily when they're caring for a new child. one of the underlying rationals for paid family leave around the world is to prevent women from interrupting their careers to care for children or at least to prevent that very inequitable pattern of women interrupting their employment than men to care for children had the family. if we look at sex breakdown for pfl claims bonding in san francisco, it's disproportionately female, women in san fra*bs appear to be more likely to drop out of the labor force or at least temporarily suspect employment when they have a
10:00 am
new khiel, they're twice as likely to take paid family leave than men are in the city. we're able to look at the bonding climbs as a percentage of this universe of folks who we think are employed living in san francisco with young children, to get an estimate of what what we call in our report the uptake or the prevalence of pfl claims among the people who are el vibl to take it in the city, and again we see something very disproportionate for gender, the number of claims by female is about 80% of all of the employed women with a young child in san francisco, the number of claims by employed males is only 26% of the number of employed men in the city who have a young child in their household, so again, very disproportionate patterns by gender there. to move on to the economic impact factors, our review of the literature in this policy